SMITHER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD Q. SMITHER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 	25-02763 (UNA)
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action brought pro se is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP motion and dismisses the complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff, a resident of Houston, Texas, is a “disabled whistleblower and federal civil rights
complainant whose claims have been ignored and mishandled” by the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Compl., ECF No. 1. In the single-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges that DOJ’s “failure to
respond to communications . . . related to a pending federal civil rights and housing discrimination
matter” violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “including 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (Retaliation).”
Plaintiff “seeks immediate injunctive relief, recognition of protected whistleblower status, and
oversight by an independent party to ensure compliance with federal law.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at
1.
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), they must comport with
Case 1:25-cv-02763-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 2

2
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987).
Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief. 	It “does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands
more than [the] unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” asserted here.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Nothing suggests that Plaintiff has pursued claims under the APA, the Rehabilitation Act,
or the ADA and obtained an agency decision. 	To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order to compel
DOJ to investigate his claims and to grant him whistleblower status, it is “long acknowledged that
the Attorney General’s authority to control the course of the federal government’s litigation is
presumptively immune from judicial review.” Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476,
1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995). 	Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions do not overcome the presumption.
Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.
__________________________________
Dated: November 12, 2025 	TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
Case 1:25-cv-02763-UNA Document 3 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 2